Updated 6 May 2016
We inspected Foulden Road on 2 March 2016, the inspection was unannounced. Our last inspection took place on the 27 May 2014 and we found that the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we checked.
Foulden Road is an 11 bedded home that provides personal care and support for adults with enduring mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were nine people living in the home. Two people were visiting the home during the day in a view to move into the service at a later date.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The provider had systems in place to manage risks, including safeguarding concerns and medicines. Missing person profiles had been developed to be able to assist the police in the event of a person being absent from the service and staff being concerned about their safety. Staff had a good understanding of the principles of safe practice when managing incidents and were familiar with the provider’s reporting procedures. We found the environment was safe, people were involved in risk assessing the home and their participation was recorded. Consistent health and safety checks were completed, and areas of the home were personalised to meet people’s individual needs and preferences. The service had received a ‘5 star’ food hygiene rating which is the highest score.
There was a suitable number of staff deployed to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Thorough recruitment checks were completed to assess the suitability of the staff employed. The provider ensured the administration, storage and disposal of medicines were managed safely.
Staff had received suitable training and support to enable them to carry on their roles effectively. Additionally the locum staff attended regular safe practice meetings to ensure they were meeting their learning objectives and were kept informed of any changes in people’s needs.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There was a DoLS in place for one person undertaken by the local authority in October 2015; however the service had failed to notify us this was in place.
Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure people received good nutrition and hydration and people were involved in the choices regarding their food preferences, this was documented in the minutes for meetings people attended. The menu catered for people’s health and cultural needs and staff had taken the time to ensure the food was attractively presented.
People were not always referred to services when there were changes to their health care needs or associated risks to their health. People’s care plans and risk assessments were not updated to show that there had been a significant change in their circumstances.
Staff were involved in attending hospital ward rounds to better support people being discharged from hospital. We found that people were encouraged to take reasonable risks in developing their independence and maintaining their own health needs. Staff were positive and enthusiastic about working with people in the service. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the support that staff provided. People’s cultural and individual lifestyle needs were recognised and celebrated. Specific initiatives were in place to expand people’s skills, confidence and self-esteem.
Records demonstrated that people actively participated in activities that empowered and promoted people’s independence in the wider community. Staff encouraged and promoted links with the family and friends of the people living in the service.
People and relatives we spoke with w